KHL teams want to keep Ovechkin, Kovalchuk rather than return 'em to NHL?

it is possible the KHL rips up that agreement for an OVechkin, but that's a risky move that might cost them big time in the future.

I doubt it... when has the NHL ever helped the KHL?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield

Czech Your Math, what part of this lockout are you not understanding? This lockout is on BOTH sides, the employer is not outright telling the employee he can't work, they are trying to get a deal done to get the players back, as the players are also trying to get a deal to play again. This is NOT unilateral situation. It is on BOTH sides they have agreed not to play.

Yes yes it's a "lockout", but the reality is there is NO OTHER CHOICE in pro sports these days, mostly due to Mr Fehr and his shenanigans in baseball, you cannot play with no CBA nowadays, it almost always ends in the players screwing the owners.

The players signed a valid contract knowing full well it was subject to the CBA, which very well may expire and cause this. The players want to end it, sign the owners last agreement. I am not pro owner here, it works vice a versa as well, but to make outrageous claims that the employer is unilaterally preventing the players from working is plain wrong.

My main beef is with the owners: they were willing to cancel a whole season, got just about everything they wanted... subsequently increased revenues since then... and most of the teams still can't make money.

Find a multi-billion $ business that has cost certainty tied to revenues in almost the exact manner they want... increases revenues substantially for several years... and has difficulty turning a profit. If you could find such an entity, I doubt the management stayed intact for ~20 years.

The owners need to get serious about settling this thing soon. Once this season is gone the NHL marginalizes itself as being on par with lacrosse and women's golf. Once the 2014 Olympics have been played, it's possible some Russians say "later dudes" and go back to the KHL for good. Probably make more money, play a funner style of hockey (not dump and chase... or duck and cover), shorter schedule, home country, and no lost season every 5-10 years. No worries though, as long as Crosby is around for 30 games/season, the NHL should have plenty of star power.

I think it's really between the big market teams (just how much they're willing to give to smaller teams) and the big star players (the lesser players know they drive the game and salaries). Maybe it'll take the NHL losing some stars and some of its marginal teams before sh** gets real enough to actually resolve the situation.

If prominent Russian players decide to stay in the KHL, there will be little the NHL can do to bring them back.

There is no binding transfer agreement. The sides have a handshake agreement to not poach each others' players under contract. If the KHL thinks they have the upper hand, the agreement will not last.

If Russian players refuse to return, their NHL teams could cancel their contracts. Or force the players to honor them (and make up for the lost years) should they ever return to the NHL. In all likelihood, neither one of these threats is likely to benefit the NHL teams.

What would the IIHF's position be? I doubt they'd want to pick a fight with Russia, given that the Olympics are just around the corner. It also probably benefits the IIHF to weaken the NHL's influence over international hockey.

Ovechkin and Kovalchuk would have obvious reasons to stay in the KHL - neither has exactly had a good run in the NHL the last couple of seasons, and both have been subject to a lot of criticism. Malkin less so, though given that he's already won everything that the NHL can offer, might want to continue his career in his home country. His contract also expires in 2014. He could use the threat to try to get the Penguins to commit to a Crosby type deal next summer.

so the iihf will just **** off the biggest player feeder they have? just to make a handful of players happy?

yeah you are fooling yourself if the iihf wouldn't bend over backwards to keep the nhl happy (even if they are not apart of the iihf).

the nhl makes the iihf a lot more money then the khl does.

you could basically say good bye to the world jr's, good bye to the world championships, good bye to the olympics. yeah it sounds like a brilliant plan to **** off the nhl.

Should just point something out. There's no transfer agreement between the KHL and the NHL. Just a memorandum of understanding, which is a non-binding agreement that exists precisely until one side or the other decides it doesn't.

If the KHL can keep Ovy and Kovy (don't see the latter staying), they're going to decide it doesn't.

Should just point something out. There's no transfer agreement between the KHL and the NHL. Just a memorandum of understanding, which is a non-binding agreement that exists precisely until one side or the other decides it doesn't.

If the KHL can keep Ovy and Kovy (don't see the latter staying), they're going to decide it doesn't.

There will be an equal amount of pressure to not do this in Russia when they realize that it crushes what look to be a strong chance at a gold medal. The NHL does not want the NHL bringing back a world cup, that will happen instantly if they don't protect the NHL from this. They will lose all NHL players from the World Championship and Olympics. As much as I like watching both events if the IIHF doesn't stop this, I would support the league leaving both and look forward to whatever tournament they put in place to compete and hurt the IIHF events.

There will be an equal amount of pressure to not do this in Russia when they realize that it crushes what look to be a strong chance at a gold medal. The NHL does not want the NHL bringing back a world cup, that will happen instantly if they don't protect the NHL from this. They will lose all NHL players from the World Championship and Olympics. As much as I like watching both events if the IIHF doesn't stop this, I would support the league leaving both and look forward to whatever tournament they put in place to compete and hurt the IIHF events.

Hasn't the NHL already stated they aren't going to the Olympics unless they get cash from the IIHF? The Russian players said they'll go anyway. If the NHL does not go, I'd hope the players would just go enmass anyway and represent their respective countries.

In between the end of the transfer agreement and start of MOU between Russia and NHL there was a mass exodus of top end talent to NA...since the MOU there has been a trickle of talent, but there have been few fights regarding contracts (Prokhorkin is the one example as vorky pointed out, but I have yet to see any confirmed resolution to that one, jury still out) and many more players (like Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, etc) have stayed in Russia longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math

My main beef is with the owners: they were willing to cancel a whole season, got just about everything they wanted... subsequently increased revenues since then... and most of the teams still can't make money.

Find a multi-billion $ business that has cost certainty tied to revenues in almost the exact manner they want... increases revenues substantially for several years... and has difficulty turning a profit. If you could find such an entity, I doubt the management stayed intact for ~20 years.

The owners need to get serious about settling this thing soon. Once this season is gone the NHL marginalizes itself as being on par with lacrosse and women's golf. Once the 2014 Olympics have been played, it's possible some Russians say "later dudes" and go back to the KHL for good. Probably make more money, play a funner style of hockey (not dump and chase... or duck and cover), shorter schedule, home country, and no lost season every 5-10 years. No worries though, as long as Crosby is around for 30 games/season, the NHL should have plenty of star power.

I think it's really between the big market teams (just how much they're willing to give to smaller teams) and the big star players (the lesser players know they drive the game and salaries). Maybe it'll take the NHL losing some stars and some of its marginal teams before sh** gets real enough to actually resolve the situation.

I get that you are upset about the lockout, we all are, but to unilaterally blame one side or the other is ridiculous, IMO. The players have chosen this course of action just as much as the owners. If these players who are playing overseas during the lockout are so upset maybe they should be back here in NA rallying players to get a deal done?

Also, this whole "owners got everything the wanted" is just not true, IMO. Yes they got the linkage and hard cap they wanted, but lost bigtime on UFA, RFA rights, high minimum contract, high floor, increasing % based on revenues, etc. It's a classic case of winning the battle, losing the war. And again, the OWNERS did not cancel the season...a labour strife cancelled the season, NEITHER side could agree to a deal last time, same as this time.

We are all frusterated, but picking one side or the other and putting all blame on them is just short sighted, IMO. Dramatics about NHL being marginalized to sports where the players work "real" jobs and their sports jobs are just weekends and free time (ie Lacrosse) is over the top exaggeration, we are still talking a 3.3 BILLION a year sport. Perhaps the NHL does lose some players in coming years to the KHL, like you said, more money, coming home, a more familiar style of play, etc, but I certainly doubt occasional labour problems with the option of playing in the league you would be going to anyways makes a huge difference. And it WON'T be guys like Ovechkin or Kovalchuk who are locked into contracts for a long long time...

Also, this whole "owners got everything the wanted" is just not true, IMO. Yes they got the linkage and hard cap they wanted, but lost bigtime on UFA, RFA rights, high minimum contract, high floor, increasing % based on revenues, etc. It's a classic case of winning the battle, losing the war. And again, the OWNERS did not cancel the season...a labour strife cancelled the season, NEITHER side could agree to a deal last time, same as this time.

That must mean there are lot of embarrassing threads here from when the lockout ended last time and fans were crowing about their and their owner partners complete and total annihilation victory over the PA. Ooops.

The owners locked the players out demanding one thing - cost certainty. The owners chose a system called a payroll range system, with a floor-ceiling difference of $16 mil, and insisted it all be linked to revenues. promising players as revenues grew so would their share and their percentage.

These were all owner demands they locked the players out to get. To now call those player wins because as revenues grew so did their share is a laughable attempt at respinning history.

They have linkage and a triple salary cap, and are lowering both again. What difference does ufa, rfa, and the falsely labelled cap circumventing contracts have to do with their profits? Its just shifting around where the money goes, not changing the amount being spent. How can such nominal concessions to rfa and ufa rights, things that they actually needed in order to allow for the lubrication to enable all the roster turnover a cap would require each year, be considered as costing the owners big time? That is self evidently nonsense.

That must mean there are lot of embarrassing threads here from when the lockout ended last time and fans were crowing about their and their owner partners complete and total annihilation victory over the PA. Ooops.

The owners locked the players out demanding one thing - cost certainty. The owners chose a system called a payroll range system, with a floor-ceiling difference of $16 mil, and insisted it all be linked to revenues. promising players as revenues grew so would their share and their percentage.

These were all owner demands they locked the players out to get. To now call those player wins because as revenues grew so did their share is a laughable attempt at respinning history.

They have linkage and a triple salary cap, and are lowering both again. What difference does ufa, rfa, and the falsely labelled cap circumventing contracts have to do with their profits? Its just shifting around where the money goes, not changing the amount being spent. How can such nominal concessions to rfa and ufa rights, things that they actually needed in order to allow for the lubrication to enable all the roster turnover a cap would require each year, be considered as costing the owners big time? That is self evidently nonsense.

It was considered a big owner win at the time the deal was signed. I never denied that.

What? I NEVER called linkage or a cap player wins. I specifically said those were what the owners won. I have no idea how you could misinterpret that. Except how would guaranteeing players a higher share be in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a owner win? The guarantee that the percentage would rise with revenues is CLEARLY a players win, since it adds to their side. The owners were willing to give there since they made a huge error predicting where the growth would come from, clearly they felt top end markets were pretty much tapped out, the growth would come from weaker markets. The opposite happened.

Oh I guess the ONLY thing that could ever matter for players is money...picking where they can play rather than being committed to a city they never chose for 14 years is not a win for players? The owners did not HAVE to give that for the cap to work, the owners were never under obligation to sign the player to the next contract after ELC, but if the owners wanted them the players were stuck till 31. The UFA age was a huge win for players. The 24% rollback, a huge win for owners, ending up being irrelevant 1-3 years into the new CBA, as salaries very quickly rose past old levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by syc

Yeah we'll see if this make whole stuff works out. If the players get a penny less then the contract they signed it could be used as an out clause.

UNDER THE OLD CBA THE PLAYERS COULD EARN LESS THAN THEIR CONTRACT. How many times does this need to be said. Under the old CBA players were subject to escrow, same as the new deal will be. The players are actually demanding something that was not guaranteed under the last CBA. This is NOT a rollback, never has been. Not sure how a player could argue they are not getting their full contract, when they signed it under the old CBA, under which they could lose money to escrow, and with it being subject to the new CBA, where they could lose money to escrow. How do they have ANY kind of case?

It was considered a big owner win at the time the deal was signed. I never denied that.

What? I NEVER called linkage or a cap player wins. I specifically said those were what the owners won. I have no idea how you could misinterpret that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield

Also, this whole "owners got everything the wanted" is just not true, IMO. Yes they got the linkage and hard cap they wanted, but lost bigtime on UFA, RFA rights, high minimum contract, high floor, increasing % based on revenues, etc. It's a classic case of winning the battle, losing the war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield

Except how would guaranteeing players a higher share be in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a owner win? The guarantee that the percentage would rise with revenues is CLEARLY a players win, since it adds to their side. The owners were willing to give there since they made a huge error predicting where the growth would come from, clearly they felt top end markets were pretty much tapped out, the growth would come from weaker markets. The opposite happened.

The players were getting about 70%. This is what the players would probably make if there was no rules to save GM's from themselves. This is the concession that the players make for a fair league.

They were locked out and forced to take 54-57%. Told that as revenues rise, so would their share. And the players conceded to that owner demand in the end. One that saved the owners a billion dollars or more over the cba. Now you want to call that $1 bil that used to go to the players but now went to the owners a player win? Good one.

The players got ufa and rfa rights, and those are something, but it didnt cost the owners anything big picture wise onvce they won everything they wanted with the linked payroll range system and triple salary cap, so they arent the same type of concessions.

And the owners led by the smartest guy in the room Bettman, and his army of cba specialists and lawyers, couldnt forsee what Fugu and many others were saying for years would happen with such a revenue disparity in the league? And he still has a job? How could such incompetence be tolerated?

And the owners led by the smartest guy in the room Bettman, and his army of cba specialists and lawyers, couldnt forsee what Fugu and many others were saying for years would happen with such a revenue disparity in the league? And he still has a job? How could such incompetence be tolerated?

Can you link me an economic forecast from 2005 that says the Canadian dollar would rise against the US dollar dramatically? If not, your charge of "incompetence" in not foreseeing this "obvious" development lacks legs.

Except that new agreements were hammered out precisely to deal with situations like Radulov's, since there weren't agreements in place at the time.

Or did you think that none of this is governed by any rules or agreements and that any party can do whatever they want on a whim? Or did you perhaps think that rules always remained exactly unchanged?

Oh look, there goes that argument.

oh, sorry, I just assumed you actually read this thread and had a basic handle on the situation.

There is no binding agreement. Just a handshake. The reason was that both sides were poaching and wanted it to stop. There was no clear advantage.

If "big fish" become available, then it would be in the KHL's interest to once again start poaching players. Sure, the NHL could come back and start signing KHL players under contract, but they wouldn't be able to get premier players like the names mentioned in this thread. So it becomes a situation where the KHL has more to gain than lose.

If the KHL teams of Ovechkin and Kovalchuk want to keep them once the lockout is over and they have said how they won't return if they get their salaries cut. I sure hope they don't mind not playing for Russia in the 2014 Olympics since they won't be allowed under the IIHF rules.

And the owners led by the smartest guy in the room Bettman, and his army of cba specialists and lawyers, couldnt forsee what Fugu and many others were saying for years would happen with such a revenue disparity in the league? And he still has a job? How could such incompetence be tolerated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybudd

Can you link me an economic forecast from 2005 that says the Canadian dollar would rise against the US dollar dramatically? If not, your charge of "incompetence" in not foreseeing this "obvious" development lacks legs.

Quote:

The NHL has grown at an average of 7.2 per cent a season under the previous collective agreement, something that allowed them to go from roughly $2.1-billion in revenues to $3.3-billion in just seven years.

(And keep in mind that the rise of the Canadian dollar made up only 0.8 to 1.5 per cent of that growth per season, depending on which side you ask. I'll let you guess which is using which.)

The rise in the Canadian dollar only played a small role in the overall growth of the NHL since the last lockout. The NHL simply put overlooked a massive flaw in the system they designed coming out of the last lockout.

That's implying that if the Cdn$ would fall back to 80 cents vs the US$, then there would be no need for this lockout. That the only reason Bettman had to lock them out for a 3rd time is because he couldnt forsee the currency fluctuations?

Its even more ironic because the cap was initially sold in Canada as something that would save the small canadian markets, and now you are suggesting that the cap failed because cdn$ grew unexpectedly.

Its not relevant whether everyone could see the dollar rebounding by then; that had a minor effect, im sure there are others here that can layout the precise numbers for you. But regardless of the currency disparity issues (which you would think any league operating in 2 currencies would have a system for dealing with), there remains revenue disparities that existed and arose quite apart from that and were easy to see even without exchange rate differences.

There were even posters here who argued that at the time. Of course its not fair to label Bettman as incompetent simply because he wasnt as smart as some hf posters, after all, who could be smarter than hf posters?

That's implying that if the Cdn$ would fall back to 80 cents vs the US$, then there would be no need for this lockout. That the only reason Bettman had to lock them out for a 3rd time is because he couldnt forsee the currency fluctuations?

Its even more ironic because the cap was initially sold in Canada as something that would save the small canadian markets, and now you are suggesting that the cap failed because cdn$ grew unexpectedly.

Its not relevant whether everyone could see the dollar rebounding by then; that had a minor effect, im sure there are others here that can layout the precise numbers for you. But regardless of the currency disparity issues (which you would think any league operating in 2 currencies would have a system for dealing with), there remains revenue disparities that existed and arose quite apart from that and were easy to see even without exchange rate differences.

There were even posters here who argued that at the time. Of course its not fair to label Bettman as incompetent simply because he wasnt as smart as some hf posters, after all, who could be smarter than hf posters?

So you wrote 4 paragraphs when you could have just said "no, nobody foresaw the canadian dollar rising by 20% so it makes no sense for me to blame Bettman for not expecting something nobody expected."

And yes, the Maple Leafs+Canucks+Canadians revenue being 20% higher than expected makes all the difference in the world in Tampa being able to comfortably make payroll at the cap floor.